Top 10 hockey myths?

Not to derail this thread any more than it already has been, but I don't think The wings beat Colarado in 02 with a lesser team.

1) I trust Kozlov in the playoffs a lot more than I trust Robitaille.

2) Hasek's 2002 season and playoff were not terribly special. He played well, but he wasn't "The Dominator". Of the Wings' recent six trips to the Cup finals, I would argue that his goaltending in that run was the weakest of any of them. Hasek played 23 games, 8 of which he was sub-.900. In Osgood's 1998 run, he played 22 games, and only have 5 such games. 1998 Osgood was 108/112 in series-winning games, and 53/59 in potential eliminators the Wings lost. 2002 Hasek was 76/81 in series winners. Hasek lost no potential series winners, but he went down twice in a series (0-2 to Vancouver, 3-2 to Colorado).

If the Wings had not won the Cup in 2002, Hasek would be getting the Tim Cheveldae treatment from Wings fans. He underperformed on many nights and the offense had to bail him out (gave up 4 goals to Vancouver in game 6 after handing them a 2-game lead).

Fans don't like to hear it because Hasek is, well, Hasek... but Osgood has a better playoff pedigree than Hasek and would have won at least one more Cup in 2002 had Hasek not been acquired.

Osgood wasn't great in 2008-09, I'll give you that. But Conklin was consistently playing worse teams, and would generally play the weaker team on a back-to-back. It's Osgood's worst season in a starting role, but given his age that's to be expected. And he was struggling through a nagging groing injury during the season; Conklin played in the Winter Classic (again!) because Osgood was out hurt. Makes you wonder... will Toronto sign him for next season?

Sure, it's to be expected that a goalie will slide a bit as he ages... but an .887!? In 2009? I mean, come on. Dwayne Roloson was going on 40 and still put up a .915 in over 60 games... Brodeur was the same age and put up a .916 in over 30 games... Khabibulin was the same age and put up a .919 in over 40 games... Thomas was just a little younger than Ozzie and put up a .933 in over 50 games. And Osgood goes out and drops a .887? That's just a horrible number, like a forward scoring 2 points in a season. There's no way to spin it around as "expected" just because he was 36 at the time.

Quote:

I was asked to compare Osgood to existing HHOFers. I think Osgood and Fuhr have very similar situations in many respects. Think about it; if Hasek, Roy and Belfour didn't exist, what happens in the mid 90s when Brodeur and Osgood come charging into the league the way they did? They're instantly revered as great goalies; that's a huge departure from what actually happened. Both were questioned until after 1995 and after 1998, respectively. They proved they were good, but were they good enough? And then they proved that. But that still wasn't enough at the time. Both were just products of the system. Osgood could have won that 2002 Cup with Chelios, Robitaille, Hull, Datsyuk, Kozlov, etc. and shut everyone up, but he wasn't given the chance. Brodeur obviously was doing a pretty good job of closing mouths at this point. Even with the Isles and Blues, people still said (and say) that Osgood was carried by the team. Unbelievable.

Well, I will agree with you on one point -- Osgood was not a "system" goalie. That's not fair to him. A system goalie is a guy like Giguere or Thomas, whose coach basically designs a method for the entire team to cover up his weaknesses. Osgood was not that way, especially not early in his career. It's fair to say he won a lot of games on the basis of team strength, that he was the beneficiary of a nearly ideal situation, but not that he was a system goalie.

And it's a fair point to step back from Hasek and Roy (maybe not Belfour so much) and ask, how would we view Osgood if he hadn't been a contemporary of two of the most dominant goalies in history? IE, how much did Hasek and Roy move the bar for other goalies in that generation? In that sense I'd say that he would clearly land behind Brodeur (a first-ballot shoo-in type legend) and Belfour (a solid HOF'er) who are ranked by consensus as being a very clear cut above the rest of the pack. Osgood would be ranked somewhere in a nebulous, difficult group with Joseph, Kolzig, Khabibulin, Burke. Good goalies to be sure, but the whole lot of them might end up on the wrong side of the HOF ballot.

Quote:

1993-94 through 1997-98 (five seasons, 140 game minimum):

Goaltender

GP

W-L-T

sv%

GAA

SO

Hasek

297

141-107-42

.928

2.25

32

Brodeur

301

160-83-47

.916

2.15

32

Roy

299

155-95-39

.915

2.56

21

Vanbiesbrouck

268

106-108-43

.912

2.58

13

Hebert

263

102-119-30

.911

2.85

15

Osgood

221

132-52-30

.909

2.33

20

Potvin

312

132-130-41

.908

2.92

10

Richter

345

161-125-40

.908

2.67

18

Belfour

330

167-107-44

.906

2.39

29

Joseph

351

167-133-39

.905

2.86

19

Hextall

250

127-81-29

.902

2.57

19

Vernon

205

109-63-27

.896

2.52

12

Thought I'd embolden those two lines... seeing as Vernon played all but the first and last year of this stretch with the Wings and Osgood, it's important to note the significant difference in ability that people generally fail to recognize between the two.

Fair point about Vernon.

What I take from the above is that during the best 5 year stretch of Osgood's career, his numbers closely resembled those of Guy Hebert, Felix Potvin and Mike Richter. That sounds worse in retrospect, because it's easy to forget that those were 3 solid goalies at the time, but still... what about having that kind of peak constitutes Hall of Fame credentials? If anything, you've pretty clearly demonstrated that even BEFORE he was a .904 platoon goalie, Osgood peaked as a guy who was not in the top tier or even particularly close to it.

Quote:

But getting back to your point on Osgood's .904...

Here's Osgood's line from 1998-99 through 2007-08.

Goaltender

GP

W-L-T

sv%

GAA

SO

Osgood 98-99 through 07-08

443

231-143-51

.906

2.48

27

Osgood 98-99 through 08-09

489

257-152-59

.904

2.54

29

Osgood 08-09 through 10-11

80

38-21-14

.889

3.02

3

Osgood 09-10 through 10-11

34

12-12-6

.893

2.93

1

That .904 you proudly shout is dragged down by poor regular season performance, largely injury-laden, over his last three seasons. One of which still includs one of the most impressive goaltending runs I've ever seen.

So shout your .904.

You think a .906 is something to promote? Really?

That's 20th among goalies with 300+GP over that time frame. Identical to Tommy Salo and Arturs Irbe, lower than Mike Dunham, Martin Biron, Manny Legace...

... I mean, you really don't see how this is pretty much a direct indictment of Osgood being no more than mediocre even when he WASN'T having the kinds of seasons you want to strike from the record?

20th... tied with Salo and Irbe... over a 9 year period... come on, man.

Actually, his statement is dead accurate. Chris Chelios is a top 50 player of all-time whereas Mike Modano would be lucky to get on the bottom end of a top 100 list, and there'd be multiple Americans (Frank Brimsek, Brian Leetch) ahead of him.

Agreed. I consider Chelios top 30, Leetch top 70, Brimsek one of the top 10 goalies ever, and Modano in the 160-180 range. Also, what the 90s advocates don't realize is that the reason there were few American skaters (Brimsek is a goalie) in the NHL before Joe Mullen entered the league in 79 is that they just weren't good enough.

In 1953 there was a dispute between the CAHA and the QAHA over the eligibility of a junior player. Actually a series of disputes about junior players crossing the border between Quebec and Ontario to play junior hockey in the other province. This actually festered into the sixties/seventies.

The CAHA suspended the QAHA over the situation. The QSHL was governed by the QAHA but had nothing to do with the dispute:

But if the QSHL had no choice but to become professional, then why would the Habs need to buy the entire league?

The QSHL was viewed as being on a par with the AHL and WHL.

Basically preserving their contractual and territorial rights, the status quo in minor hockey They also owned one of the franchises outright - Montreal Royals and were providing players or coaches to the other teams.

Let's be generous and say they were supporting their business partners, protecting assets across the board while looking out for their own interests.

The league only went to a 70-game season a few seasons before Duff's career started, so of course an average player with a long career is going to be well up on the list.

Basically he's 7th amongst his contemporaries. Which is exactly the same thing you criticize Goring for later in your post, and Goring played a much stronger position.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canadiens1958

He was the first or second line LW on his team throughout his time with the Leafs - leading scorer 1957-58 & 1958-59 (key player in the team's late season rally to finish 4th) and the Canadiens - playing mainly with Jean Beliveau and Henri Richard. BTW leading a team in scoring is hard to do if you are not a first liner.

Butch Goring was a second or third line center with the Kings and Islanders. He had one good playoff winning the Conn Smythe in 1981 but quickly reverted to form third center behind Trottier and Brent Sutter. First four cup Islander to be moved - Boston where he was exposed as weak defensively and retired.

When Goring retired, he was 15th All-time in scoring amongst Centers BUT only 7th amongst his contemporaries.

At best he was a Ralph Backstrom level center - both lead their team in scoring once but Goring had more wrinkles. Goring was demoted to the AHL from a weak Kings team in an expanded NHL, was somewhat soft - Ralph Backstrom actually fought Gordie Howe, Nov. 8,1964.

Compare Goring and Duff on reasonable metrics.

Peak value?

Goring's best offensive year he was 12th in league scoring. 2nd best year? 12th again.

Duff's best offensive year he was 17th in league scoring. 18th in his 2nd best year.

5-year peak, Goring is 12th in league scoring 1975-1980, Duff is 19th 1955-1960. Also worth noting that Duff did this as the #1 center on a bad team, and Goring was the #2 center behind Dionne on those LA teams so out-performed Duff despite less icetime.

Goring was also a strong defensive player and PK stalwart. Duff was average defensively and didn't kill penalties.

And of course Goring played a more important position.

Career value?

Goring has 883 points in 1107 games.

Duff has 572 points in 1030 games.

Adjusted for era, Goring still comes out well ahead - 773 points to 633.

And again, this is while being better defensively and more versatile. Goring was the NHL all-time SHG leader when he retired, and still sits 5th behind only Gretzky, Lemieux, Yzerman, and Messier.

Playoff value?

Probably a wash.

7 Cups to 4 but was far easier to accumulate Cups in Duff's era.

Points and points/game are very similar.

Goring won a Conn Smythe in 1981 and is considered to be the player who put the Islanders 'over the top' to set the table for their dynasty. Duff was a great playoff performer who would probably have been 2nd-3rd in Selke consideration in 1962 and 1969.

__________

Goring had a better peak, better career, was a superior all-around player, and the two had similar playoff records. Goring is more qualified for the HHOF by a fair bit .... and he still shouldn't even really be that close.

And again, some of the stuff you throw out there is ridiculous - the 'first 4 Cup Islander moved' and 'couldn't keep up defensively in Boston' comments are a joke when you consider that was his last season and he was the oldest forward playing in the NHL that year. Duff's last 3 seasons are hardly a Picasso, but that isn't what he's judged by.

Dryden was bad against the Russians. I've watched every game he played against the Soviets and my personal feeling is he has only one truly awful game, game 1 in '72. And obviously he wasn't alone in having a bad game for Canada that night. Game 4 in '72 he's completely hung out to dry. I think he's unfairly judged for the tie on New Year's Eve: everyone of the goals surrendered were prime scoring opportunities.
This myth (again in my judgement) discounts how absolutely outstanding he was in game 6. Canada spent almost a third of the game short handed and Dryden only gave up a single PP goal. And this with Canada's best penalty killer, Bobby Clarke, serving a 10 minute misconduct. He also is outstanding in game 1 of the Challenge Cup and actually is the better goalie in game 2 in spite of the loss.
To say that he was just bad is to suggest there's an example of a Canadian goalie being truly superior. I don't see that as the case. Esposito's performance in '72 is similar to Dryden's, fairly up and down, but Dryden has the misfortune of being in net in both of Canada's worst team performances. Cheever's in spite of some hiccups was consistently good in '74, but Dryden never had a game as truly awful as Cheevers had in the Challenge Cup final. Vachon was backing the best team Canada ever iced against an inferior Soviet team in '76. Liut, well...Lemelin got spanked. Fuhr made some outstanding saves in '87 but also gave up some real softies. That leaves Pete Peeters(?) as the lone unblemished performer. Anyway, Dryden's neither good nor bad. 3-3-1 head to head against Tretiak, but somehow Tretiak doesn't get near as much criticism for melting down in game 8 in '72 or being truly awful in game 2 of the Challenge Cup.

Yes, one of the first juniors to play cross provincial borders post WWII. Relevant to the foundation of the 1953 CAHA/QAHA dispute.

Ya absolutely. Lulu there's status a bone of contention territorially with the CAHA when the QSHL was purportedly "amateur" circa 1941-53; calling themselves "semi-pro" in 50, disputes between the CAHA & QAHA, the latter being "suspended" by the former while the QAHA suspended the QSHL who in turn renamed themselves the QHL in 53 with full pro-status; Beliveau earning essentially almost double the average NHL salary; Pollock buying up the rights to the players in the league; just beyond convoluted.

Dryden was bad against the Russians. I've watched every game he played against the Soviets and my personal feeling is he has only one truly awful game, game 1 in '72. And obviously he wasn't alone in having a bad game for Canada that night. Game 4 in '72 he's completely hung out to dry. I think he's unfairly judged for the tie on New Year's Eve: everyone of the goals surrendered were prime scoring opportunities.
This myth (again in my judgement) discounts how absolutely outstanding he was in game 6. Canada spent almost a third of the game short handed and Dryden only gave up a single PP goal. And this with Canada's best penalty killer, Bobby Clarke, serving a 10 minute misconduct. He also is outstanding in game 1 of the Challenge Cup and actually is the better goalie in game 2 in spite of the loss.
To say that he was just bad is to suggest there's an example of a Canadian goalie being truly superior. I don't see that as the case. Esposito's performance in '72 is similar to Dryden's, fairly up and down, but Dryden has the misfortune of being in net in both of Canada's worst team performances. Cheever's in spite of some hiccups was consistently good in '74, but Dryden never had a game as truly awful as Cheevers had in the Challenge Cup final. Vachon was backing the best team Canada ever iced against an inferior Soviet team in '76. Liut, well...Lemelin got spanked. Fuhr made some outstanding saves in '87 but also gave up some real softies. That leaves Pete Peeters(?) as the lone unblemished performer. Anyway, Dryden's neither good nor bad. 3-3-1 head to head against Tretiak, but somehow Tretiak doesn't get near as much criticism for melting down in game 8 in '72 or being truly awful in game 2 of the Challenge Cup.

The Canadian penalty killers, particularly Mahovlich and Berenson, did a very good job that game.

According to this game recap, the Soviets had a grand total of five quality chances all game, 3 of them on the PP (and this is in a game with 8 Soviet PPs including a 5-on-3). I didn't believe it at first, so I watched the game again on Youtube. Surprisingly, the Canadian PK actually was that good - Berenson alone must have blocked about 7 shots on the PK, the centres did a very good job winning faceoffs, and even when the Soviets actually got into the zone they were prone to over-passing and looking for that perfect shot (as was their wont), and usually a Canadian would intercept and clear before they found the "perfect shot". Canada also caught a break when Kharlamov hit the crossbar on the 5-on-3.

You're right that Dryden shouldn't really be blamed for the failings of Canada's discipline or personnel selection (Awrey/Seiling was atrocious in Game 1). But even though he was dealt a bad hand I don't think he was played it very well either.

Ya absolutely. Lulu there's status a bone of contention territorially with the CAHA when the QSHL was purportedly "amateur" circa 1941-53; calling themselves "semi-pro" in 50, disputes between the CAHA & QAHA, the latter being "suspended" by the former while the QAHA suspended the QSHL who in turn renamed themselves the QHL in 53 with full pro-status; Beliveau earning essentially almost double the average NHL salary; Pollock buying up the rights to the players in the league; just beyond convoluted.

Dryden was bad against the Russians. I've watched every game he played against the Soviets and my personal feeling is he has only one truly awful game, game 1 in '72. And obviously he wasn't alone in having a bad game for Canada that night. Game 4 in '72 he's completely hung out to dry. I think he's unfairly judged for the tie on New Year's Eve: everyone of the goals surrendered were prime scoring opportunities.
This myth (again in my judgement) discounts how absolutely outstanding he was in game 6. Canada spent almost a third of the game short handed and Dryden only gave up a single PP goal. And this with Canada's best penalty killer, Bobby Clarke, serving a 10 minute misconduct. He also is outstanding in game 1 of the Challenge Cup and actually is the better goalie in game 2 in spite of the loss.
To say that he was just bad is to suggest there's an example of a Canadian goalie being truly superior. I don't see that as the case. Esposito's performance in '72 is similar to Dryden's, fairly up and down, but Dryden has the misfortune of being in net in both of Canada's worst team performances. Cheever's in spite of some hiccups was consistently good in '74, but Dryden never had a game as truly awful as Cheevers had in the Challenge Cup final. Vachon was backing the best team Canada ever iced against an inferior Soviet team in '76. Liut, well...Lemelin got spanked. Fuhr made some outstanding saves in '87 but also gave up some real softies. That leaves Pete Peeters(?) as the lone unblemished performer. Anyway, Dryden's neither good nor bad. 3-3-1 head to head against Tretiak, but somehow Tretiak doesn't get near as much criticism for melting down in game 8 in '72 or being truly awful in game 2 of the Challenge Cup.

He certainly did not do much on New Years Eve, and the contrast with Tretiak standing on his head in the other end was pretty extreme.

Another myth: That New Years game was "the best ever played"; Epic battle, Red Army vs Montreal Canadiens, but Canadiens skaters totally outplayed the Red Army and Tretiak totally outplayed Dryden...was extremely entertaining, but hardly the best hockey ever...and Montreal was just starting to get there game back and hardly dominant at that point in time.

There's a myth I've seen repeated here several times that NHL hockey and players starting in the 90s are better than the pre-90s NHL hockey and players, because there were no Europeans pre-1990. Salming is a top 65 player all time and he started in 73. I'll take my NHL hockey and top 10 players who started their careers before 1990 and put them up against any NHL hockey and top 10 players who started their careers after 1990.

You are talking about 2 different things here and have the myth either confused or it's true in a sense.

I'm not going to use the term better but different and equal streams.

Basically pre 1980 the NHL was comprised of a huge majority of canadains with a small sprinkling of foreign players. In the 80's the % of Americans increased quite quickly and others from euorpe at a slower pace. By the mid 90's the NHL had around 60% cAandians and then the rest from the US and Europe, which is vastly different than the makeup before 1980.

Also by the mid 90's the typical top 10 Canadian lists were equaled, or pretty close, with a top 10 non Canadian list in goals, assists and points in a season.

One simply has to look at the top 20 lists of leaders each year in hockey reference to see these changes.

If anything the real myth is that it's fair to compare as equal or close to equal top 20 finishes over time when it's clear that it's not.

It's not really a myth per say but rather something that gets exaggerated by some trying to defend a position and not let the actual facts of the matter get in the way of their arguments.

It's not really a myth per say but rather something that gets exaggerated by some trying to defend a position and not let the actual facts of the matter get in the way of their arguments.

Such a road is traveled quite often by both sides of this debate.
To say that the posters defending previous era's are the only ones guilty of exaggeration and ignoring of facts is a statement of extreme exaggeration and ignorance in itself!

Your ability to ignore facts for example, is most definitely on a World class/fully integrated League level IMO

He was on the downslope of his career post expansion Hv. It's his early & mid-life portion, most notably with the Leafs that earned him his place in the HHOF. Comparing him to John Tonelli is fairly accurate, astute, but calling him "lesser"? Patently unfair..... as for Trevor Linden? If I was on the Induction Committee, absolutely I'd be making a strong case for that one. Class Act all the way, though he too has his detractors within the hockey community proper. Frankly, its not a case of "either or" as to why Duff's in & whomevers not, fact is he is, doesnt mean you have to blindly nor blithely accept it. But what purpose does it serve to crucify the guy simply because perhaps you & others posting here apparently dont understand why he's in there to begin with? Criteria & qualifications that supercede raw numbers. You only hurt your argument's in denigrating Duff, elevating others above, demeaning & disrespecting a great player & his accomplishments.

Look to be fair I never saw Duff play as I'm too young to remember him but he was only top 10 in the league in anything 2 times, an 8th and 9th in goals and that's in a 6 team league when he was 20 and 22 years old.

Duff's best ever finish in points was 17th, once again in a 6 team league so that's in the bottom end of the third tier of scoring on players per team, ie

1st tier 6 top scorers from each team
2nd tier 6 2nd scorers from each team
3rd tier 6 3rd place scorers from each team

Simply put he was an average to below average scorer over his career.

His intangibles can't put him as the difference on those 6 cup teams either, if he is the difference then we have to give less credit to the 4-6 ahead of him on those 6 teams.

There is only so much credit to go around for each SC.

You saw him play and were impressed which is great but the HHOF is for the truly great players in NHL history not for personal favorites.

Like was stated before if Duff why not Draper, then why not 10 other guys...then the HHOF losses it's meaning.

Agreed. I consider Chelios top 30, Leetch top 70, Brimsek one of the top 10 goalies ever, and Modano in the 160-180 range. Also, what the 90s advocates don't realize is that the reason there were few American skaters (Brimsek is a goalie) in the NHL before Joe Mullen entered the league in 79 is that they just weren't good enough.

Just curious, does Modano make your top 50ish centers list or is he down farther than that?

Modano really had two different careers, the one before Hitch and then Hitchtime in which he was very very good.

Even going simply by stats, mike is 4th in points against his piers overall.

8th in goals and 7th in assists, throw in his excellent 2 way game decent playoff resume and international play he is the best forward the States has ever produced IMO and should be on most peoples top 50-60 centers of all time lists.

Such a road is traveled quite often by both sides of this debate.
To say that the posters defending previous era's are the only ones guilty of exaggeration and ignoring of facts is a statement of extreme exaggeration and ignorance in itself!

Your ability to ignore facts for example, is most definitely on a World class/fully integrated League level IMO

I'll let the facts speak for themselves but i always look at a fuller picture rather than a narrow one for any player I'm looking at.

Just curious, does Modano make your top 50ish centers list or is he down farther than that?

Modano~~ is the best forward the States has ever produced

Arguably one of the best.
Roenick has a pretty solid claim as well.

Either way, neither of them are the best player the Yanks have ever produced, that is unquestionably Mr Chris Chelios.
In fact, I would put Chelios, Leetch and Langway all ahead of Modano or Roenick on that list.

The Yanks have most definitely been stronger at producing Elite D-men than Elite forwards.
Even this season, the best Yank in the League IMO is a D-man, Suter.

Either way, neither of them are the best player the Yanks have ever produced, that is unquestionably Mr Chris Chelios.
In fact, I would put Chelios, Leetch and Langway all ahead of Modano or Roenick on that list.

The Yanks have most definitely been stronger at producing Elite D-men than Elite forwards.
Even this season, the best Yank in the League IMO is a D-man, Suter.

I can see the case for Roenick, and as a commentator he is alot like us as well.

That being said he never really fullfilled his potential after his early injuries and might be easily ahead of Mike if he had remained on track.

Basically preserving their contractual and territorial rights, the status quo in minor hockey They also owned one of the franchises outright - Montreal Royals and were providing players or coaches to the other teams.

Let's be generous and say they were supporting their business partners, protecting assets across the board while looking out for their own interests.

But did the Habs really need to buy the QSHL in order to obtain Beliveau's services? Sorry, that's what I meant to ask.

But did the Habs really need to buy the QSHL in order to obtain Beliveau's services? Sorry, that's what I meant to ask.

Okay. Yes.

There may have been other alternatives but no guarantees.The CAHA, the head of amateur hockey in Canada was threatening a professional team - the Montreal Canadiens and a professional league the NHL in the province of Quebec. This threat not only impacted the Canadiens' right to Jean Beliveau but the rights that all NHL teams had to amateur players across the hockey world.

Arguably one of the best. Roenick has a pretty solid claim as well. Either way, neither of them are the best player the Yanks have ever produced, that is unquestionably Mr Chris Chelios. In fact, I would put Chelios, Leetch and Langway all ahead of Modano or Roenick on that list. The Yanks have most definitely been stronger at producing Elite D-men than Elite forwards. Even this season, the best Yank in the League IMO is a D-man, Suter.

Agreed. I have all the retired dmen in the top 90 and the highest I would rank rank either forward is 160.